COVID deaths still declining

[whag]

OEC doesn't necessarily dismiss evolution.

Perhaps the most famous and infamous OEC figure is William Dembski, who does everything in his power to dismiss evolution and rationalize the POE.

https://billdembski.com/documents/20...end_of_xty.pdf

[EvoUK]

Perhaps he is OEC

I was under the impression that he was more of the nutty YEC variety - though OEC is nutty enough tbh.

[EvoUK]

Perhaps the most famous and infamous OEC figure is William Dembski, who does everything in his power to dismiss evolution and rationalize the POE.

https://billdembski.com/documents/20...end_of_xty.pdf

Yeah, OEC doesn't really accept the reality of evolution (I cant believe we're still having this sort of discussion in 2020- who on earth doesn't accept this sort of basic stuff these days?)

[EvoUK]

But I'd hate to malign MM by assuming he is a OEC or even nuttier a YEC if he isn't one, so when he pops along later and confirms that he accepts the reality of basic facts then I'll be happy to apologise for my error.

[edited to add] this has sort of gone off on a tangent, but meh - there's plenty of COVID-19 threads about!

[whag]

(who on earth doesn't accept this sort of basic stuff these days?)

Unfortunately—and unsurprisingly—mostly Americans. Anti-evo sentiment is one of the USA’s most shameful exports.

[Ronson]

Perhaps the most famous and infamous OEC figure is William Dembski, who does everything in his power to dismiss evolution and rationalize the POE.

https://billdembski.com/documents/20...end_of_xty.pdf

IMO he over analyzes the subject. Simply put: Evolution is Intelligent Design. The former is the vehicle, the tool used by God, and seen in very slow motion by us.

[Mountain Man]

It’s not a canard if the world’s greatest philosophers and religious thinkers also wrestled with it.

If fact, one of the reasons you deny evolution is because of the implications of natural evil preceding the fall.

Have I ever said that's why I deny evolution? Or that I deny evolution at all? I know that God created the universe, but the exact process he used is an open question as far as I'm concerned. I think you've confused the logical implications of atheism with the logical implications of evolution.

As for the problem of evil, it begs the question that it is impossible for a good God to have a morally sufficient reason to allow evil to exist (whether we're talking the evil of men or "natural evil" like a virus makes no difference), and so, in the end, the problem of evil refutes itself.

[Mountain Man]

A difficult concept to explain for those who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, and benign Supreme Being.

Who says that God is benign? Have you ever actually read the Bible?

[EvoUK]

Unfortunately—and unsurprisingly—mostly Americans. Anti-evo sentiment is one of the USA’s most shameful exports.

The anti-vaxxer stuff is worse. Anti-evolution is embarrassing, but anti-vaxxer is dangerous and actively harmful to others. I'm not sure which country this poisonous export originally belongs to, but it has a lot to answer for.

For example, a recent CNN poll found that perhaps 1/3 of Americans would not get vaccinated for COVID-19 even if it were cheap and widely available (it should be free). It isn't much better in my country, which apparently is 1/6.

[whag]

Have I ever said that's why I deny evolution? Or that I deny evolution at all? I know that God created the universe, but the exact process he used is an open question as far as I'm concerned.

It’s not an open question that the universe is billions of years old. Cosmologists confirmed it long ago. It’s definitely not an open question that life evolves. Moreover, the human genome project confirmed you are a primate and that chimps and human beings evolved from the same common ancestor.

You’ve made some specious arguments about evolution. They’re in Nat Science forum. Happy to revisit them if you want.

As for the problem of evil, it begs the question that it is impossible for a good God to have a morally sufficient reason to allow evil to exist (whether we're talking the evil of men or "natural evil" like a virus makes no difference), and so, in the end, the problem of evil refutes itself.

You’re purposely conflating “allow evil to exist” with “create evil.” If death, disease, and calamity were never non existent on earth, that nullifies human culpability in introducing misery.

Hence why Bill Dembski wrote The End of Christianity, a tortuous and much-lampooned attempt to rationalize natural evil.

[whag]

The anti-vaxxer stuff is worse. Anti-evolution is embarrassing, but anti-vaxxer is dangerous and actively harmful to others. I'm not sure which country this poisonous export originally belongs to, but it has a lot to answer for.

For example, a recent CNN poll found that perhaps 1/3 of Americans would not get vaccinated for COVID-19 even if it were cheap and widely available (it should be free). It isn't much better in my country, which apparently is 1/6.

I suspect there’s a correlation between anti-vax distrust of data and anti-evo paranoia that science is trying to rob people of their Christian faith.

[mikewhitney]

By the end of June / start of July, the 7-day average death rate had fallen below 500 deaths per day. This is the same time we saw daily cases rise to record-setting levels (see Sparko's post above for visual).

My "doom and gloom" expectations:

• Hospitalization numbers will surge about 2-3 weeks behind the case-count surge. We're seeing the start of that surge now. By this time next week (7/15), I expect many cities will be constructing "overflow" hospitals and health care professionals across the country will be forced to engage in triage (deciding which patients do or don't receive scarce life-saving treatments).
• Death numbers will surge about 1-2 weeks behind the hospitalization surge. Over the next week, we'll see hints of this (maybe a couple 1-day spikes over 1,000). Between 7/15 and 7/22, the 7-day-average will start climbing swiftly and steadily.
• BY the end of July, the 7 day average will have climbed to around 1500-2000 per day. Only by early August will the effects of the renewed lockdown efforts (currently underway) dampen this increase - peak will probably hit around Aug 7, probably shy of the daily records set in April, but still in the 2000 - 2500 ballpark.
• Due to the the haphazard and half-hearted nature of this renewed lockdown, I expect the daily death tolls will not fall back below 1000 until some time in September.
• Adding this all up, my "most likely scenario" expectation is that our current death count of 132,000 will rise to 155,000 by the end of July and climb over 200,000 by the end of August. By the time we're casting ballots in November, it'll be double what it is today.

"Money where my mouth is" time.

To answer mikewhitney's original question "How much longer do you need to prove that increased "cases" are not leading to "continuing" epidemic numbers of deaths?", I'd say end-of-July. If in response to the on-going case-count surge, the 7-day-average daily death toll hasn't climbed over 1,000 by Aug 1, that will prove to me that COVID is nowhere near as deadly as I feared it to be. If it stays at or below 500 per day for the rest of July, I'll openly apologize on this thread for having been duped into the liberal agenda and for failing to see COVID-19 as the hoax it truly is.

Let me reverse this. mikewhitney and others seem confident that COVID isn't nearly as deadly as it's made out to be; that doom-and-gloom predictions like mine above are absurdly out of step with reality. Same timeline - end of July: will you openly admit that COVID is far more deadly than you believe if the 7 day-average quadruples to over 2000 by end-of-July? If not 2000, what number would it take to prove to you that you were wrong about the deadliness of COVID?

It would take significant numbers beyond the annual flu/influenza/respiratory deaths. These have not occurred thus far except in a few cities.

Every time I have checked the statistic for cities and coronavirus, the deaths have been below flu levels. California and Texas are the primary ones I shared. These were below the yearly flu/influenza/respiratory annual death rate. So, the shutdowns have not been needed -- neither for easing hospital loading nor for reducing deaths.

There would have to be a sudden occurrence of high deaths traceable to COVID-19 as the only cause in order to put this into a pandemic situation. Or is a pandemic not concerned with the number of deaths as a percentage of population?

There were some exceptions. The deaths in NYC appear to be due to government and hospital mismanagement. Maybe there were also localized vulnerabilities to greater sickness there.

[shunyadragon]

It would take significant numbers beyond the annual flu/influenza/respiratory deaths. These have not occurred thus far except in a few cities.

Every time I have checked the statistic for cities and coronavirus, the deaths have been below flu levels. California and Texas are the primary ones I shared. These were below the yearly flu/influenza/respiratory annual death rate. So, the shutdowns have not been needed -- neither for easing hospital loading nor for reducing deaths.

There would have to be a sudden occurrence of high deaths traceable to COVID-19 as the only cause in order to put this into a pandemic situation. Or is a pandemic not concerned with the number of deaths as a percentage of population?

There were some exceptions. The deaths in NYC appear to be due to government and hospital mismanagement. Maybe there were also localized vulnerabilities to greater sickness there.

Bold The total cases and deaths from COVID-19 exceed the past two pandemics in 1957 and 2003. Pandemic is a world thing and not based on individual cities.

Israel just spiked in the second peak with a higher rate of cases and deaths then the first peak. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/middl...ntl/index.html

[Mountain Man]

You’re purposely conflating “allow evil to exist” with “create evil.” If death, disease, and calamity were never non existent on earth, that nullifies human culpability in introducing misery.

Did God necessarily create "natural evil"? Or is it simply a natural consequence of man introducing sin and corruption to the world?

[rogue06]

OEC doesn't necessarily dismiss evolution.

Every OEC I know does. If they didn't they'd be Theistic Evolutionists or Evolutionary Creationist.